The Gulf crisis has placed India's foreign policy under an extraordinary test. The conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States has disrupted energy supplies and threatened shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important energy corridors. For India, which imports close to 90 per cent of its crude oil requirements, the consequences extend beyond the price of petroleum. They involve energy security, maritime trade, relations with competing regional powers and the safety of nearly 10 million Indians living and working in the Gulf.

India's predicament is particularly complex. Iran is an important neighbouring country, while Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other Gulf states are indispensable economic and energy partners. Israel is an important defence and technology partner, and the United States remains central to India's wider strategic engagement. An overt alignment with any one side could complicate its relationships with the others.

India has therefore pursued a policy of diplomatic engagement without military alignment. The objective has been to preserve communication with all principal actors, secure energy supplies and protect Indian shipping without becoming a participant in the conflict.

Dealing Across Competing Relationships

The diplomatic outreach has been substantial. In his statement to Parliament on 9 March 2026, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar confirmed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had spoken with the leaders of the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Jordan, as well as Israel. India maintained regular contact with the United States through diplomatic channels. Jaishankar himself spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on 28 February and 5 March.

The distinction is important. India did not claim that it enjoyed unrestricted political access to Tehran. Indeed, the External Affairs Minister acknowledged the difficulties of leadership-level contacts with Iran. Nevertheless, diplomatic communication was maintained.

In his subsequent address to Parliament on 24 March, the Prime Minister confirmed that India was in touch with Iran, Israel, the United States and all Gulf countries. The discussions focused on de-escalation, restoration of peace and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

This simultaneous engagement illustrates the central feature of India's oil diplomacy: preserving relationships with countries whose interests are in direct conflict, while ensuring that India's own energy and commercial interests remain paramount.

Securing Safe Passage Through Hormuz 

The practical test: securing passage through Hormuz

Diplomacy acquired an immediate commercial dimension when Indian vessels faced uncertainty in the Persian Gulf.

Two Indian-flagged LPG carriers, Shivalik and Nanda Devi, carrying approximately 92,712 tonnes of LPG, crossed the Strait of Hormuz early on 13 March. They subsequently reached Mundra and Kandla on 16 and 17 March respectively.

Their safe passage was significant because LPG is an essential household fuel. The episode demonstrated the importance of diplomatic engagement, maritime coordination and communication with regional authorities in keeping critical supplies moving.

The government also had to protect Indian seafarers and other vessels in the region. On 14 March, 22 Indian-flagged vessels with 611 seafarers were reported to be west of the Strait. The Directorate General of Shipping coordinated with shipping companies and Indian missions to monitor their safety.

The humanitarian handling of the Iranian naval vessel IRIS Lavan was another revealing episode. Following an Iranian request for three vessels to dock at Indian ports, India granted permission on 1 March. IRIS Lavan docked at Kochi on 4 March, and its crew received assistance at Indian naval facilities. This decision demonstrated that India retained diplomatic and humanitarian space even as the conflict intensified.

Value of Procurement Diversification 

Diplomacy was reinforced by a longer-term change in India's energy procurement strategy. In his parliamentary statement on 12 March, 2026 India's Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Hardeep Singh Puri stated that approximately 45 per cent of India's crude imports had previously transited Hormuz. Non-Hormuz sourcing, Puri explained, had increased from 55 per cent to approximately 70 per cent following the disruption.

He also stated that India now sourced crude from 40 countries, compared with 27 in 2006–07.

These figures are important because they demonstrate the value of diversification. India's cultivated access to alternative energy suppliers, including Russia, the United States and producers in Africa, provided flexibility when the Gulf route became severely disrupted. The diversification was the product of sustained procurement changes over several years, rather than an achievement of the crisis period alone.

It is this underlying commercial flexibility that gives diplomacy greater leverage. A country with alternative suppliers and established trading relationships is better positioned to negotiate safe passage and manage disruptions than one dependent on a single geographical corridor.

Transactional Nature of Energy Diplomacy

On 4 November, Iranian parliamentarian Amir Hayat-Moghaddam, deputy chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, stated that Iran had exempted vessels from India, China, Iraq and Qatar from certain restrictions on passage through Hormuz.

He reportedly explained that facilitating Indian shipping was linked to Iran's interest in obtaining medicines from India. He also indicated that Indian and Chinese vessels were subject to transit fees.

This is potentially a significant development in India's diplomatic engagement with Tehran. However, the announcement is attributable to an Iranian parliamentary figure and should not be confused with a formally announced bilateral agreement or an internationally guaranteed right of passage.

It also illustrates the transactional nature of energy diplomacy in a conflict environment: access to critical maritime routes can become intertwined with broader commercial and diplomatic interests

Real Measure of Strategic Autonomy 

India's experience in the Gulf crisis offers an important illustration of strategic autonomy in practice. It has maintained engagement with Iran without distancing itself from Israel, the United States or Gulf Arab partners. It has sought safe passage for essential energy cargoes, protected its maritime interests, and continued to advocate de-escalation rather than military alignment.

There are, of course, limits to what diplomacy can achieve when shipping routes are exposed to military threats. Nor can bilateral understandings substitute for internationally recognised freedom of navigation.

Nevertheless, India's approach demonstrates why energy diplomacy must extend beyond securing favourable crude contracts. It requires political relationships, diversified sources of supply, maritime coordination and the ability to communicate with competing powers even during periods of acute hostility.

The real measure of strategic autonomy is the ability to protect national interests without becoming captive to the geopolitical choices of others. India's oil diplomacy in the Gulf crisis is an important illustration of that difficult but necessary course.

(The writer is a retired Special Secretary, Government of India and a commentator on financial, geoeconomic and regional issues. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at ppmitra56@gmail.com.)